P. v. Williams
Filed 9/4/13 P. v. Williams CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL ANTHONY
WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
C071208
(Super. Ct. No.
CRF091116)
Defendant Michael Anthony Williams
pled no contest to charges of abusing the mother of his child. In accordance with the terms of his
probation, the terms of which he later violated. After revoking defendant’s probation, the
trial court doubled his prison sentence because of a strike prior he admitted
as part of his plea agreement.
Defendant argues that under the
terms of his plea agreement he admitted the strike prior only conditionally
because the mention of the strike prior on the first page of the plea agreement
includes the words “conditional admission upon proof only.†He argues that the prosecutor failed to meet
that condition by failing to adequately prove his strike prior. Since the condition was allegedly not met,
defendant believes the trial court erred in doubling his sentence.
Having reviewed the plea agreement,
we conclude the only reasonable construction of the entire agreement is that
defendant made an unconditional admission of the strike prior. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The underlying facts of the offense
are immaterial to the issue on appeal.
On September 8, 2009, defendant was charged with various
offenses related to spousal abuse. The
information alleged that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction.
The same day the information was
filed, defendant completed a written plea agreement. The plea form consisted of three pages, with
a fourth page entitled Attachment “A.â€
The first page of the plea agreement contained a typewritten subheading,
which provided in part, “I further understand that by admitting the following
‘enhancement’ charges made by the DISTRICT ATTORNEY in the charging document,
my maximum punishment may be increased as follows.†Underneath this subheading were two adjacent
columns. The first was labeled
“Enhancement Charges†and the other was labeled “Additional Punishment.†Under the label “Enhancement Charges†the
words “strike (conditional admission upon proof only)†were
handwritten. The word
“Additional Punishment†label, “x2†-- presumably meaning times two -- was
written. Thus, by this entry on the
form, defendant acknowledged his understanding that if he admitted the strike
allegation, his punishment could be doubled.
The second page of the agreement
contained a handwritten paragraph at item No. 8 that was then crossed out. The subheading to this paragraph read, in
full, “No one has threatened or promised to reward me, my family or anyone else
to get me to enter this plea. No one has
told me, or promised or suggested to me, that I will receive a lighter
sentence, or probation, or any other favors to get me to enter this plea,
except that I have entered into the following conditional terms of this PLEA
AGREEMENT.†The paragraph underneath
this heading contained the description of what defendant’s plea to his current
charges would be. In the same paragraph
was also written, “I also admit 2 prison priors charged and a 1992 strike
(conditional upon proof only).â€
The entire paragraph was then crossed out and annotated with the words,
“See attached Attachment ‘A.’ â€
Attachment “A†consisted of a
typewritten, lengthier statement of the terms of the plea agreement. The entire text of the attachment reads as
follows: “This is a conditional and
negotiated plea. I will plead ‘No
Contest’ to all of the charges in the Second Amended Information as
follows. 1) Felony 273.5(a) P.C
Infliction of Corporal Injury on Spouse, 2) Misdemeanor 11550(a) H.&S.
Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance - Cocaine, 3) Misdemeanor 273a(b)
P.C. Abusing or Endangering Health of a Child, 4) Misdemeanor 594(a)(b)(2)(A)
P.C. Vandalism. I also admit the
following enhancements: ‘Case
Enhancement a,’ a prior serious felony ‘strike’ offense per 667(d) P.C., ‘Case
Enhancement b,’ a prison prior per 667.5(b) P.C., and ‘Case Enhancement c,’ a
prison prior per 667.5(b) P.C. I
understand I will be sentenced to a 3 year term of probation on the misdemeanor
offences in Counts 2-4, and will be placed on FORMAL MISDEMEANOR PROBATION with
terms and conditions which among other things will include a 6 month
residential drug treatment program, a 52 week domestic violence program and the
surrendering of my Class A commercial driver’s license. I further understand that sentencing on the
Felony charge in Count 1 and the attached case enhancements will be deferred
for a period of 2 years in which time I MUST complete the 6 month residential
drug treatment program and the 52 week domestic violence class. I understand that this two year period will
start running when I am placed in a residential drug treatment program. I further understand that ANY sustained
violation of the terms of my probation WILL result in the sentencing of the
Felony charge and enhancements. If I
complete the drug treatment program and the 52 week domestic violence class
within the two years and have no sustained violations of probation, I will be
allowed to withdraw my plea to the felony charge and it, along with the
enhancements will be dismissed.â€
Attachment “A†made no reference to
a conditional admission of the strike prior.
Defendant and his attorney signed the plea agreement and initialed the
attachment.
Defendant’s plea hearing took place
on September 8, 2009. During this proceeding, defendant pled no
contest to the current charges against him.
The following exchange then occurred:
“THE COURT: And Case Enhancement a, do you admit Case
Enhancement a, which is an enhancement based upon a prior felony conviction --
previous felony conviction pursuant to which enhancement for one prior felony
that prohibits probation, limits credits, requires consecutive sentence,
mandates prison commitment, and felony is a conviction November 3, 1992,
for a violation of Health and Safety Code, excuse me, Penal Code Section 245(a)(1)
slash 1192(c)(23)?â€
“MR. MOUNT [Prosecuting
Attorney]: Your Honor, let me explain
the charging on that particular enhancement.
“The prior package from
County has a minute order reflecting the change of plea indicating that the
defendant pled no contest to a 245(a)(1).
“Also, in that prior package is the
actual information -- Complaint itself, which shows that that was charged as a
245(a)(1), assault with a motor vehicle with an allegation attached to it that
was pleading it as a serious offense under 1192.7(c)(23) of the Penal Code.
“The judgment and commitment form
from Sacramento Country has the plea as to a 245(a)(2), which was Count 2 of
that Complaint, which had to do with the defendant shooting a firearm at his --
at the mother of his child.
“As there is that confusion I put
both charges in. The People are
satisfied that because the 1192.7(c)(23) allegation was attached to Count 1
that no matter which charge he actually pled to, either one of them would have
constituted a strike under California law.
“THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Lance, you’re comfortable with
that?
“MS. LANCE [Defense Counsel]: Yes, your Honor.
“THE COURT: All right.
Do you also admit the prior prison term, this is Case Enhancement d (
November 3, 1992 in Sacramento County?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes sir.
“THE COURT: And a second case enhancement, this one is c
for prior prison term for conviction of a felony, June 14th, 2002, in Sacramento?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.â€
The court then found a factual
basis to support the charges and found that defendant understood his
constitutional rights, the nature of the charges, and the consequences of the
plea. At no juncture during the entire
proceeding did defense counsel argue that the admission of the strike prior was
conditional.
On September 23, 2009, in
accordance with his plea, defendant received a deferred entry of judgment on
both the felony count and the enhancements.
He was then admitted to probation for a period of three years. The terms of his probation required, among
other things, mandatory enrollment in a 52-week domestic violence program,
submission to drug and alcohol testing, and abstention from drug and alcohol
use.
On April 6, 2012, the trial
court conducted a probation revocation hearing.
The court found that defendant had violated the terms of his probation
based on his admission that that he used alcohol and marijuana, had been
terminated from the domestic violence program for excessive absences, and
failed to submit to a drug test. On
May 17, 2012, the court sentenced defendant to a term of three years in
state prison, doubled to six years because of the strike prior. Defendant filed a
DISCUSSION
A Certificate Of
Probable Cause Is Not Required To Challenge the Enforcement Of Defendant’s Plea
Agreement
Defendant contends he admitted his
strike prior conditionally and the condition was never met. The condition, according to defendant, was
that the enhancement would be subject to proof at the time that it was used to
double his sentence, if the enhancement were ever to be used. Defendant claims that this was the intended meaning
of the phrase, “strike (conditional admission upon proof only).â€
The People argue, however, that
defendant’s claim is not cognizable on appeal.
The People point out that defendant did not obtain a certificate of
probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5), which is a requirement to contest
the validity of one’s plea on appeal. (
13 Cal.4th 68, 75.) Because
defendant failed to obtain a certificate, the People argue his claim is barred
on appeal and that his sentence should stand.
We conclude that defendant’s claim
does not constitute an “attack on the validity of the plea,†for which a
certificate of probable cause is required.
Rather, defendant’s claim questions the enforcement of the terms of his
plea agreement, for which a certificate is not required. (See People
v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 43 [a certificate is not required “if
the appeal is based upon grounds that arose after entry of the plea and that do
not affect the validity of the pleaâ€].)
Here, defendant argues that the
prosecutor did not adequately prove his strike prior during the sentencing
proceedings. In other words, the
“condition†in the plea agreement was never satisfied. Based on these arguments, it is evident that
defendant does not contest the validity of his plea agreement. Rather, he argues that the People failed to
follow the terms of the plea
agreement, namely, the fulfillment of a condition. Because defendant’s claim attacks the
enforcement of his plea rather than its validity, a certificate of probable
cause is not required.
We now address the issue on the
merits.
II
Interpretation Of
Defendant’s Plea Agreement As A Contract Reveals The Absence of Any Condition
On Defendant’s Admission Of The Strike Prior
As we have noted, defendant argues
that his six-year sentence was improper because the prosecutor did not offer
sufficient proof of his strike prior, and thus, the terms of his plea agreement
were violated. We conclude that a
reasonable interpretation of the plea agreement indicates that the parties
ultimately did not intend the agreement to contain a condition. Thus, the terms of defendant’s plea agreement
were not violated, and his sentence was properly doubled. Given this conclusion, we do not reach defendant’s
argument regarding the sufficiency of the prosecutor’s evidence.
In California, a negotiated plea
agreement is a form of contract, and it is interpreted according to general
contract principles. (People v.
Toscano (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 340, 344.) The fundamental goal of contractual
interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties
involved. (Civ. Code, § 1636.) If the language of the contract is clear and
explicit, it governs. (Civ. Code,
§ 1638.) On the other hand, if the
terms of a promise are in any way ambiguous or uncertain, the contract must be
interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making
it, that the promisee understood it. (Civ. Code, § 1649; see Bank
of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1264–1265.) The mutual intention to which the courts give
effect is determined by the objective manifestations of the parties’ intent,
including the words used in the agreement, as well as extrinsic evidence of
objective matters such as the surrounding circumstances under which the parties
negotiated or entered into the contract; the object, nature and subject matter
of the contract; and the subsequent conduct of the parties. (Civ. Code, §§ 1635–1656; People v.
Toscano, supra, at
p. 345.)
Consistent with California law, we
consider the parties’ intent, as objectively manifested by the terms of the
document. A reading of the entire
document reveals that defendant did
in fact accept all the charges and enhancements contained in the plea
agreement. As noted earlier, though the
first page contained defendant’s conditional language, this page of the
agreement was simply an acknowledgment by defendant that his sentence might be
increased if he admitted the strike prior.
By contrast, the original paragraph on the second page of the agreement
contained the actual terms that defendant was agreeing to admit. In large part because it is noted “[s]ee
attached Attachment ‘A,’ †one can reasonably infer that the original
paragraph was crossed out exactly so that it could be supplanted by Attachment
“Aâ€. Attachment “A†must be given
greater significance than the first page of the agreement since it was typed,
attached to the original plea agreement, and spelled out the actual terms
defendant was agreeing to. Since the
attachment contains no mention of conditional proof, one can infer that the
parties purposely included this form at least in part to reflect their desire
that no additional proof was in fact needed.
The question then turns to what one
should make of the language on the first page of the plea agreement. Defendant contends that the words
“ ‘conditional admission upon proof only’ †cannot be ignored
or deemed unimportant. In defendant’s
view, if he had wanted to admit his strike prior absent any condition, surely
he would have crossed out the conditional term on the first page as well. He did not do this, and so he argues that the
condition should stand. We
disagree. The presence of the conditional
proof term on the first page of the plea agreement does not necessarily reflect
the parties’ intention to include that term in the agreement they ultimately
struck. As noted earlier, the part of
the agreement that contains the terms of the plea agreement -- Attachment “Aâ€
-- bears no mention of a condition. The
fact that the conditional proof language still remains on the first page, where
at most, defendant merely acknowledged the potential consequences of the
agreement, likely reflects nothing more than a failure to make a conforming
amendment to this portion of the document after the parties decided that defendant’s
admission of the strike prior would not be conditional.
The foregoing interpretation of the plea agreement is bolstered by the
fact that defendant failed to argue or even mention any condition on his
admission of the strike prior during the plea hearing. As noted earlier, a party's conduct subsequent to the formation of a contract may be considered to determine the meaning of disputed contractual terms.
(People v. Toscano,
supra, at 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 345;
Medical Center v. Shewry
(2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 964, 980.) Here,
defendant’s conduct during the plea hearing -- which followed the formation of
the plea agreement -- further demonstrates the lack of a condition in the
agreement. As noted earlier, during the
plea hearing the judge was in the midst of taking an admission when the
prosecutor interrupted to explain why he charged the strike prior in the manner
that he did. Because of the prosecutor’s
interruption, defendant did not orally admit the strike prior.
either one of the offenses defendant was charged with counted as a strike, and
everyone in the court, including defense counsel, thereafter proceeded as if
defendant had in fact admitted the strike.
Defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s recitation of the
counts. Rather, she indicated her
acknowledgement that regardless of which charge defendant was ultimately
convicted of, the charge constituted a strike.
She also failed to raise any objection to the admission for the rest of
the proceeding.
Eventually, when defendant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced
to prison on April 6, 2012, there was again no argument that his admission
of the strike prior was subject to a condition.
This further supports our interpretation of the agreement. The lack of objection by defense counsel during the plea hearings in regards
to defendant’s admission, along with the lack of any argument pertaining to a
conditional plea, both aid in interpreting the agreement. Such conduct further points to the absence of
a condition in the plea agreement.
In summary, we conclude that
defendant’s plea agreement did not provide for a conditional admission of the
strike prior. Accordingly, defendant’s
challenge to his sentence is without merit.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
ROBIE , Acting P. J.
We
concur:
BUTZ , J.
DUARTE , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
It is worth noting that while
defendant initialed Attachment “A,†in which he agreed to admit the strike
without the condition of proof, he did not
initial the paragraph on page one where the conditional proof language was left
in.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2]
Defendant notes that he did not
provide an oral admission to the strike prior, but he does not raise that as a
separate claim of error.
